Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
Indeed, the ease with which the clever people on this list are able to generate explanations that go either way seems to me to be a bad sign for evolutionary psychology. Hi Alex, It was a bad sign for EP 25 years ago when that was virtually all there was to EP (then called socio-biology) but EP these days does a lot more than generate interesting explanations. Today's EP practitioners use their explanations to generate predictions for laboratory behavior of humans today and then test those predictions. They are sometimes quite startling. Perhaps the best example is the many many experiments that show that an elementary logic problem can be posed in dozens of different more and less familiar ways and most people will get it wrong. But pose the problem in a form in which it involves identifying cheating on social exchange, even if the setting is very unfamiliar, and almost everybody gets it right. This pattern was a prediction of EP theory of social exchange. In other examples, women have been asked in laboratories to select the pictures of men they find most appealing for short affairs and for long term relationships. There is a very strong tendency for them to choose men with physical characteristics typical of those with higher testosterone levels for affairs than for long term relationships. Also, the tendency to choose higher testosterone goes up when women are ovulating. (Both EP predictions.) There are some examples where predictions have been less spectacularly successful. For example, attempts to establish an evolutionary explanation for aesthetics have been less than fully successful (I'm being generous). Still, there can be no doubt that EP is a real science which is making real progress in understanding human behavior. This from someone who only 7 years ago was about as die hard an environmentalist as there could be. The more I've learned the more I've been won over to the view that there are important insights to be had by studying the genetic origins of behavior. - - Bill Dickens (DC based) William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/09/01 06:31PM Why not deny the empirical fact - given all we have for data is a second-hand report about a newspaper column! Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
The Fight or Flight adrenaline effect is yet another (possibly clever?) explanatory note; the specific adversity/disaster is important. I don't believe in any general happiness while hungry or happiness while in pain. But when the crummy circumstance was caused by a more specific threat, the adrenaline creates a chemical mood change, at least temporarily. In war, repeatedly. It's not clear if EP tests given to the Russians during the war would give the same results as those same tests a few years after the war -- I think not; what's too painful to remember, we simply choose to forget; so it's the laughter, which we remember... Another issue is solidarity -- when people can join together to fight against the bad situation, and those nearby are similarly enduring the problems. Not misery loves company, but we shall overcome and we're all in this together. Mob pyschology / holy spirit in gatherings (?); the US 60's protests generated intense feelings, and many ex hippies never felt generally as good again. And one more issue, the lack of regret about decisions, especially in war. Most soldiers follow orders, which they're not really responsible for. For many people, too many choices, too much freedom, causes unhappy indecisiveness about what is desired and what should be chosen. In a stressful time when there are few or no other choices, there is no opportunity-lost regret about what wasn't done. The clarity of pure action implementation, do, or do not; there is no try, allows a focus of effort and, if successful, a pure enjoyment. This is also related to the enjoyment of trying your hardest, really giving 100% of yourself, to a worthy goal. This sounds like sports; when I played ultimate at lunch, it was great to stop thinking about work and the world etc., and just strive to be the best I could be. It also sounds like cramming for tests in university. Insofar as lack of choice is important, then it's probably a little outside of utility maximizing considerations. Whether disaster raises happiness; or, if there's more happiness under adversity, then why? is really interesting and leads down many paths. Tom Grey -Original Message- From: fabio guillermo rojas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 2:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust Well, the second-hand report supplied by me was just one bit of evidence in support of the more general observation that some people report that they are happiest in situations of adversity - a point raised by Robin. Someone volunteered that a survey had shown that some Russians were happiest during WWII, when millions were killed or starved to death. The question is whether this situation - happiness during adversity - is typical for certain contexts. That't empirical. The theoretical question is Robin's: if it is true that you can increase your happiness in crummy circumstance, then is that not a challenge to the utility maximizing hypothesis that modern economics is based on? Fabio
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
The EP experiments don't seem that convincing. Can't you make the same arguments against the EP experiments that many economists make against the work of Kahneman/Tversky --that there isn't enough at stake for the individual to make a good decision. It seems silly to show people pictures and ask them who'd they'd like to spend their life with or have a fling with. Would the test subject care about putting any effort into making their decesion in such an artificial setting? Daljit Dhadwal William Dickens wrote: Today's EP practitioners use their explanations to generate predictions for laboratory behavior of humans today and then test those predictions. They are sometimes quite startling. Perhaps the best example is the many many experiments that show that an elementary logic problem can be posed in dozens of different more and less familiar ways and most people will get it wrong. But pose the problem in a form in which it involves identifying cheating on social exchange, even if the setting is very unfamiliar, and almost everybody gets it right. This pattern was a prediction of EP theory of social exchange. In other examples, women have been asked in laboratories to select the pictures of men they find most appealing for short affairs and for long term relationships. There is a very strong tendency for them to choose men with physical characteristics typical of those with higher testosterone levels for affairs than for long term relationships. Also, the tendency to choose higher testosterone goes up when women are ovulating. (Both EP predictions.) - - Bill Dickens (DC based) William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens
RE: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
Since Darwin we normally think that it is women who choose which males to mate with since males want to mate indiscriminately. Thus you would expect it would be the male who would have to adapt to the woman and not the other way around. However, if we are talking about males supporting women and/or forming lifetime bonds then we have an evolutionary game and it isn't clear what the outcome is. However, that just puts us back in the dilemma that I proposed earlier. We can see that it might be in men's interest to want to mate when threatened but not women. I don't deny the empirical fact, I just don't buy the explanations that have been given. - - Bill Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/03/01 12:12PM I think the popularity of Nightmare on Elm Street, etc., including with many young women, is fairly relevant, and supportive of stress arousal. I'd suspect a strong second order effect in women: the men are more than usually aroused; which leads to more than usual arousal in the women. I'd suspect women who are NOT more than usually aroused with such men to be at a doubly severe evolutionary disadvantage: a) fewer children overall, and b) less likely to keep a father around to help with the kids she does have. Tom Grey -Original Message- From: William Dickens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust I think this is a good EP explanation for men, but there is a problem with it as an explanation for women. I have to admit that I don't know if women are aroused by stress as well, but from the woman's perspective it would seem that her offspring would be most likely to succeed if she waited for the guys to come back and then picked from that bunch. They would presumably be a more fit sub-sample of the original population and would be more likely to be around to help provide for the children. - - Bill Dickens William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/01 10:19PM With regard to Mr. Dickens' comment regarding whether stress should cause sexual arousal, I am tempted to think that evolutionary psychology can certainly explain this phenomenon. Early societies, according to most models of human development, used the males as hunters and warriors; females were gatherers. With this division of labor, males certainly incurred the more perilous part of the community's job. Before an important hunt or major battle, it is manifestly in the male's evolutionary favor to become sexually aroused; after all, this may be his genome's last chance to reproduce itself! Even if he dies in battle, his sex partners -- still safely at home -- will be able to bear his young.
RE: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
The problem with all of this is that humans don't really fit the mold. In other animals it is always the male who is adorned. The male lion has the mane. The male peacock has the long tail. Even in less glamorous birds like ducks. The male is more colorful. In humans however, it appears that it is the women who spend more time primping and preening. (Good thing, I've already disqualified myself from running for office.)Males tend to spend less time on their appearance. Even though I'm the worst offender for bringing in animal behavior models, this would seem to make these models less applicable to humans. David Mitchell - Original Message - From: William Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2001 3:27 pm Subject: RE: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust Since Darwin we normally think that it is women who choose which males to mate with since males want to mate indiscriminately. Thus you would expect it would be the male who would have to adapt to the woman and not the other way around. However, if we are talking about males supporting women and/or forming lifetime bonds then we have an evolutionary game and it isn't clear what the outcome is. However, that just puts us back in the dilemma that I proposed earlier. We can see that it might be in men's interest to want to mate when threatened but not women. I don't deny the empirical fact, I just don't buy the explanations that have been given. - - Bill Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/03/01 12:12PM I think the popularity of Nightmare on Elm Street, etc., including with many young women, is fairly relevant, and supportive of stress arousal. I'd suspect a strong second order effect in women: the men are more than usually aroused; which leads to more than usual arousal in the women. I'd suspect women who are NOT more than usually aroused with such men to be at a doubly severe evolutionary disadvantage: a) fewer children overall, and b) less likely to keep a father around to help with the kids she does have. Tom Grey -Original Message- From: William Dickens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust I think this is a good EP explanation for men, but there is a problem with it as an explanation for women. I have to admit that I don't know if women are aroused by stress as well, but from the woman's perspective it wouldseem that her offspring would be most likely to succeed if she waited for the guys to come back and then picked from that bunch. They would presumablybe a more fit sub-sample of the original population and would be more likely to be around to help provide for the children. - - Bill Dickens William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/01 10:19PM With regard to Mr. Dickens' comment regarding whether stress shouldcause sexual arousal, I am tempted to think that evolutionary psychology can certainly explain this phenomenon. Early societies, according to most models of human development, used the males as hunters and warriors; females were gatherers. With this division of labor, males certainly incurred the more perilous part of the community's job. Before an important hunt or major battle, it is manifestly in the male's evolutionary favor to become sexually aroused; after all, this may be his genome's last chance to reproduce itself! Even if he dies in battle, his sex partners -- still safely at home -- will be able to bear his young.
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
Why not deny the empirical fact - given all we have for data is a second-hand report about a newspaper column! Indeed, the ease with which the clever people on this list are able to generate explanations that go either way seems to me to be a bad sign for evolutionary psychology. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
I think the popularity of Nightmare on Elm Street, etc., including with many young women, is fairly relevant, and supportive of stress arousal. I'd suspect a strong second order effect in women: the men are more than usually aroused; which leads to more than usual arousal in the women. I'd suspect women who are NOT more than usually aroused with such men to be at a doubly severe evolutionary disadvantage: a) fewer children overall, and b) less likely to keep a father around to help with the kids she does have. Tom Grey -Original Message- From: William Dickens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust I think this is a good EP explanation for men, but there is a problem with it as an explanation for women. I have to admit that I don't know if women are aroused by stress as well, but from the woman's perspective it would seem that her offspring would be most likely to succeed if she waited for the guys to come back and then picked from that bunch. They would presumably be a more fit sub-sample of the original population and would be more likely to be around to help provide for the children. - - Bill Dickens William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/01 10:19PM With regard to Mr. Dickens' comment regarding whether stress should cause sexual arousal, I am tempted to think that evolutionary psychology can certainly explain this phenomenon. Early societies, according to most models of human development, used the males as hunters and warriors; females were gatherers. With this division of labor, males certainly incurred the more perilous part of the community's job. Before an important hunt or major battle, it is manifestly in the male's evolutionary favor to become sexually aroused; after all, this may be his genome's last chance to reproduce itself! Even if he dies in battle, his sex partners -- still safely at home -- will be able to bear his young.
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
I think this is a good EP explanation for men, but there is a problem with it as an explanation for women. I have to admit that I don't know if women are aroused by stress as well, but from the woman's perspective it would seem that her offspring would be most likely to succeed if she waited for the guys to come back and then picked from that bunch. They would presumably be a more fit sub-sample of the original population and would be more likely to be around to help provide for the children. - - Bill Dickens William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/01 10:19PM With regard to Mr. Dickens' comment regarding whether stress should cause sexual arousal, I am tempted to think that evolutionary psychology can certainly explain this phenomenon. Early societies, according to most models of human development, used the males as hunters and warriors; females were gatherers. With this division of labor, males certainly incurred the more perilous part of the community's job. Before an important hunt or major battle, it is manifestly in the male's evolutionary favor to become sexually aroused; after all, this may be his genome's last chance to reproduce itself! Even if he dies in battle, his sex partners -- still safely at home -- will be able to bear his young.
SV: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
I remember to have both read and seen (on discovery channel) a couple of studies that conclude that human females do in fact use this same strategy as the birds (nesting with the reliable male, but mating with the high quality). I believe this was labelled as a superior mating strategy - just as the superior male mating strategy is to find the right mix of quality (staying and raising his offspring) and quantity (mating with as many as possible). That this primal urge among women was still alive and kicking was allegedly confirmed by a study (conducted on british discos, I believe) showing that women are more prone to go out alone (with female friends - whithout boyfriends / husbands) when they also have the biggest chance of getting pregnant. That - compaired with the girls NOT pregnant-prone - these girls were also more likely to be dressed to kill. And - finally - that girls where more likely to be unfaithful at this time of the month. Also supporting this theory is a study (reported this summer in Danish media) based on the growing number of instances where a father volunteers to donate an organ to one of his own children. In 15 percent of these cases (in Denmark) - if I remember right - the DNA test reveiled that the two were NOT related (of course the fathers were not told this - only that there was no match). Presumably these figures excluded fathers who already knew that they were not the father of the child. Although it is probably a somewhat small sample (I don't remember the size), it is nevertheless pretty representative of the population at large, I would say. As I said, most of this is just what I remember off hand - can anyone confirm??? Jacob Wimpffen Bræstrup Esthersvej 22, 2tv. DK-2900 Hellerup DENMARK Tel: (+45) 39 400 600 / 2020 3232 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Power threatens; wealth rewards: one eludes power by deceiving it; to obtain the favours of wealth one must serve it: the latter is therefore bound to win - Constant's speech given at the Athénée Royal, 1819 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]På vegne af [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 3. oktober 2001 17:12 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust Possibly. In many species of birds, the female will mate with high quality males who are often not around b/c high quality males have many mating opportunities. The female then nests with a lower quality male who raises the young. I don't actually know if humans do this, b/c humans don't always fit the models. Mitch Mitchell - Original Message - From: William Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2001 7:17 am Subject: Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust I think this is a good EP explanation for men, but there is a problem with it as an explanation for women. I have to admit that I don't know if women are aroused by stress as well, but from the woman's perspective it would seem that her offspring would be most likely to succeed if she waited for the guys to come back and then picked from that bunch. They would presumably be a more fit sub- sample of the original population and would be more likely to be around to help provide for the children. - - Bill Dickens William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/01 10:19PM With regard to Mr. Dickens' comment regarding whether stress should cause sexual arousal, I am tempted to think that evolutionary psychology can certainly explain this phenomenon. Early societies, according to most models of human development, used the males as hunters and warriors; females were gatherers. With this division of labor, males certainly incurred the more perilous part of the community's job. Before an important hunt or major battle, it is manifestly in the male's evolutionary favor to become sexually aroused; after all, this may be his genome's last chance to reproduce itself! Even if he dies in battle, his sex partners -- still safely at home -- will be able to bear his young.
RE: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
Misery, it seems, loves company. How much less depressing life is if everyone is having a hard time, indeed, look no further than Communism to see how everyone being miserable together is still seen by some as preferable to people getting on and succeeding as a result of their own efforts. The bigger question for me (sitting here in London) is when will the US consumer snap out of their present mood and once again begin to shop? James -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Cunningham Sent: 01 October 2001 18:25 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust I think I recall also reading somewhere that suicide rates dropped markedly during both the Great Depression and WW II. John At 11:43 AM 10/1/01 -0400, you wrote: A lot of Soviet citizens, similarly, (retrospectively) claimed they were happiest during World War II, when something like 1-out-of-8 perished! -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what *they* thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. --Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
A lot of Soviet citizens, similarly, (retrospectively) claimed they were happiest during World War II, when something like 1-out-of-8 perished! -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what *they* thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. --Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
Bryan Caplan wrote: A lot of Soviet citizens, similarly, (retrospectively) claimed they were happiest during World War II, when something like 1-out-of-8 perished! Selection bias! Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
An article in the LA Times discusses how high levels of stress change hormonal balances in the body causing, ahem, sexual arousal during times of stress. I can easily imagine a similar effect for just plain happiness. Fabio On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Robin Hanson wrote: The Washington Post had two interesting articles yesterday about the recent disaster changed public opinion, on happiness and on trust. On happiness, when asked last weekend to rate the overall quality of their lives on a seven point scale, more than 44% picked the highest rating. In June that was 30%, and in December 1999 it was 31%. This seems to me to be an enormous problem for those who want to measure economic policies by how much they increase reported happiness. Was this disaster good for the nation because it made people happier?! On trust, when asked Sept 25-27, 64% of Americans now trust the federal government nearly always or most of the time to do what is right, more than double the percentage who said so in April 2000, and the highest it has been for three decades. If we interpret this to be a factual estimate by those questioned, rather than a statement of values, this seems very hard to square with rationality. What evidence of federal behavior in the last two weeks could possibly be the basis for this huge change in opinion? The big info has to be that the disaster was allowed to occur, and most federal action since then has been a promises to do useful things, rather than doing anything demonstrably useful. This seems to me a clear case of wishful thinking, where people believe what they want to be true. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
I think I recall also reading somewhere that suicide rates dropped markedly during both the Great Depression and WW II. John At 11:43 AM 10/1/01 -0400, you wrote: A lot of Soviet citizens, similarly, (retrospectively) claimed they were happiest during World War II, when something like 1-out-of-8 perished! -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what *they* thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. --Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
Fabio Rojas wrote: An article in the LA Times discusses how high levels of stress change hormonal balances in the body causing, ahem, sexual arousal during times of stress. William Dickens wrote: Well that (if the LA Times got it right) is a very odd fact. Why would we be programmed to make babies when we are under stress as opposed to when we are fat and content? ... it really seems that such an impulse would be counter productive. ... Perhaps our emotional/behavioral systems simply aren't sophisticated enough to parse out different types of arousal, but if that is true that should throw a lot of suspicion on the whole enterprise of evolutionary psychology since the mechanisms that are being posited concerning sexuality and social interaction are usually much more highly nuanced than this. One evolutionary psychology interpretation would be that when a group is suddenly threatened, its members are programmed to reassure each other of their affection and loyalty. Sex can do that. Babies may result, but perhaps other processes can reduce that effect when babies are less desired. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
With regard to Mr. Dickens' comment regarding whether stress should cause sexual arousal, I am tempted to think that evolutionary psychology can certainly explain this phenomenon. Early societies, according to most models of human development, used the males as hunters and warriors; females were gatherers. With this division of labor, males certainly incurred the more perilous part of the community's job. Before an important hunt or major battle, it is manifestly in the male's evolutionary favor to become sexually aroused; after all, this may be his genome's last chance to reproduce itself! Even if he dies in battle, his sex partners -- still safely at home -- will be able to bear his young. From an economic perspective, a man who expects to die tomorrow discounts the future at a rate of infinity and thus strives to consume as much product as possible immediately. Some variant of this story is likely true for women as well; if virtually the entire male contingent of the tribe (and probably the fittest contingent at that) is going off to war, women must be impregnated immediately if they are to bear fit offspring. Hence they, too, increase the rate at which they discount the future. I would suppose that this increased rate is the cause of increased happiness in the public. If people discount the future at a high rate, they are likely to indulge in instant gratification, intensifying their spending and reaping the short-term utility of their action. This boosts their level of happiness, causing the poll results. (This might also suggest that the oft-noted increase in wartime GDP stems in part from the private sector.) Any thoughts? --Brian Auriti
